I will be voting for one of the two candidates Parliamentary Party sends me. Regardless of how someone voted back in 2016 EuroRef, for me it's a simple choice as we look forward, not back:
We need someone who can get us to 2022.
We don't want someone who will crash and burn on Bonfire Night having failed to get Parliamentary approval a no-deal on Halloween and thus precipitate a general election by Xmas.
I think the Parliuamentary Party has now worked this out for itself. Whether the membership has twigged is another matter.
The whole process has been characterised as a horse race. And recent history tells me that the riders focus on what's immediately in front of them rather than anticipating what might be coming up. We need a leader to look beyond the immediate hurdle to see what's on the other side of the fence... all the way to 2022.
Johnson isn't that man. Which is why Alistair's analysis is correct.
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
Shocking mixing of horse race metaphors but otherwise yes I agree.
> @bunnco said: > > We need someone who can get us to 2022. > > We don't want someone who will crash and burn on Bonfire Night having failed to get Parliamentary approval a no-deal on Halloween and thus precipitate a general election by Xmas. > -------
But what's the alternative? A deal with Labour won't work, and a further extension with continuing stalemate will just help shed more voters. The only option is a second referendum, but they're all ruling it out.
> We don't want someone who will crash and burn on Bonfire Night having failed to get Parliamentary approval a no-deal on Halloween and thus precipitate a general election by Xmas.
>
-------
But what's the alternative? A deal with Labour won't work, and a further extension with continuing stalemate will just help shed more voters. The only option is a second referendum, but they're all ruling it out.
We had a referendum, and the people gave their answer. It’s not the fault of the people, that the politicians have failed to carry out their instructions.
@Richard_Nabavi don't forget that Boris is also about the only candidate who could do a volte face on no deal and march onwards as though nothing had happened.
You think so? I'd have thought the opposite- people know that Boris isn't "pure" on this. If he decides a bad deal is better than no deal, TBP, ERG and co will say he was never really a true Leaver.
What you need is someone with better Leave credentials but who you still think would, ultimately, not accept No Deal. Does anyone actually fit that criteria? Raab? Leadsome?
Raab certainly seems to be on the front foot with his digital campaign... Not sure how much difference it will make with his MPs and Con members though.
The former won't be swayed by slick marketing videos even if they do go viral and I doubt many of the later are even on social media.
Still, I suppose its a sign that if he became Con leader a Raab general election campaign would at least be professional (which will be a relief to Con MPs after the 2017 debacle...
I'm waiting for the TV debates to see who looks comfortable on screen. I suspect the MPs will do the same. My gut feeling is that they will have to choose a brexiteer outside the current cabinet vs Hunt, and then see where the members land. They'll then have to hope that the chosen leader can connect with the voters. All of us - MPs, members and voters - will have to test our fear of Brexit vs our fear of Corbyn
> @Sandpit said: > > We had a referendum, and the people gave their answer. It’s not the fault of the people, that the politicians have failed to carry out their instructions.
That's not the point. The question is how the Conservative party can survive.
> Mr. B2, Yorkshire is not in the south. Cease this blasphemy!
Most southerly part of the British Isles part of the UK is approx N49 51.000. Most northerly is approx N60 51.000. That means the midway point, delineating north and south is at N55 21.000. That a line cutting roughly through Girvan - Moffat - Amble. Yorkshire is *entirely* in the southern half.
I'd say that 'the North' and 'the South' tend to refer to England.
If you add the counties' areas in order from north to south, with their southern tip being the defining point, you reach half the area of England (c65,200 sq km) somewhere between Shropshire and Norfolk.
Yes, there was also some muttering from someone on here recently that neither Raab nor Miliband "looked the part," which given their total difference in almost every area, also sounds like code for something else.
Can we get a price Ed Miliband for the Conservative leadership? Those currently declared are so uninspiring and the Tories nicked most of Ed's policies anyway, especially the chaos.
@Richard_Nabavi don't forget that Boris is also about the only candidate who could do a volte face on no deal and march onwards as though nothing had happened.
You think so? I'd have thought the opposite- people know that Boris isn't "pure" on this. If he decides a bad deal is better than no deal, TBP, ERG and co will say he was never really a true Leaver.
What you need is someone with better Leave credentials but who you still think would, ultimately, not accept No Deal. Does anyone actually fit that criteria? Raab? Leadsome?
Hmm not sure; I think he is accepted as having got leave over the line so surely has some credit for that.
Plus he might convert those otherwise unconvertable.
One analysis I saw suggested that the 2 nominators for each Tory leadership candidate should be added to their declared support? is that right?> Do we know who the nominators are to confirm we are not double counting?
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > Mr. Me, interesting climatic comment. > > Mr. Urquhart, I think someone tipped Miliband as next Labour leader at about 101. > > Upon checking, that was Mr. Eagles in 2017. I put a pound or two on. > > I tipped him at 200/1. > > http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/29/is-this-ed-milibands-route-back-to-the-labour-leadership/ > > Can we get a price Ed Miliband for the Conservative leadership? Those currently declared are so uninspiring and the Tories nicked most of Ed's policies anyway, especially the chaos.
I'll give you 100/1 Ed Miliband wins this Tory leadership race. Any amount, payable up front.
Raab is head of something called Conservatives Against Fox Hunting. I would sooner gouge out my own eyeballs and eat them on cocktail sticks than get involved in a debate on the rights and wrongs of that position just now, but I would guess it's a net vote loser among party members and I am certain that if he is elected the party will permanently lose a lot of its core vote (with, of course, the possibility that it will pick up more than it loses).
> @ExiledInScotland said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > Raab: The Movie > > > > > > https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1134030344649355264 > > > > > > Raab certainly seems to be on the front foot with his digital campaign... Not sure how much difference it will make with his MPs and Con members though. > > > > The former won't be swayed by slick marketing videos even if they do go viral and I doubt many of the later are even on social media. > > > > Still, I suppose its a sign that if he became Con leader a Raab general election campaign would at least be professional (which will be a relief to Con MPs after the 2017 debacle... > > I'm waiting for the TV debates to see who looks comfortable on screen. I suspect the MPs will do the same. My gut feeling is that they will have to choose a brexiteer outside the current cabinet vs Hunt, and then see where the members land. They'll then have to hope that the chosen leader can connect with the voters. All of us - MPs, members and voters - will have to test our fear of Brexit vs our fear of Corbyn
I think Gove is now the more likely opponent for Boris or Raab than Hunt
> This is one of the main difficulties, I think. On one of my routes to work (which I avoid when possible for reasons set out below) there is a right turn on to a side road on a blind left bend. You cannot see far enough around the bend to make the turn safely >
One of my pet peeves with Google Maps is the number of right turns its routes take you on, or pointless "short-cuts" that theoretically save you a minute by having you make half a dozen additional turns.
The algorithm is essentially stupid and has no finesse. Why isn't there a complexity penalty to encourage the algorithm to return simpler routes? Why aren't right turns penalised to avoid you sitting waiting for someone to let you out?
Now I'm supposed to trust these people to create algorithms to drive the car as well as plot the route? I'd like to see them do the route better first.
> @TheWhiteRabbit said: > Question: > > One analysis I saw suggested that the 2 nominators for each Tory leadership candidate should be added to their declared support? is that right?> Do we know who the nominators are to confirm we are not double counting?
> @IanB2 said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @JosiasJessop said: > > > Indeed, or in rural Dorset (/other county of your choice)... > > > > > > The algorithms required when two driverless cars meet each other on single-track lane, when one has a trailer and the other is at the head of a line of other cars, is going to make landing on Mars look simple. Then again negotiating a few stray sheep will be challenging too. > > > > > > Not. Going. To. Happen. > > > > > > One of Elon Musk's major negatives is his fanatical and deadly habit of over-promoting the capabilities of his 'driverless' cars, when sane caution is best. > > > > > > The edge and corner cases in driverless cars are numerous; and he shows f'all consideration of the fact that he is pushing the technology far and fast. > > > > > > This will kill people. In fact, it can be argued that it already has. > > > > Of course driverless cars will kill people. The relevant question is, will they save more people than they kill. Humans are, shall we say, imperfect drivers. The carnage on the roads is frightening and is often caused by impatience and inattention. That shouldn't be a problem for a computer. The issue for a computer will be inference and assessing novel situations. Computers are getting surprisingly good at both of these things. Driverless cars that are safer than human drivers are a few short years away. Whether they can cope without getting themselves stuck is a more interesting question imo. > > But how do you punish a driverless car?
And why would you punish a human driver for a mistake?
> @IanB2 said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @JosiasJessop said: > > > Indeed, or in rural Dorset (/other county of your choice)... > > > > > > The algorithms required when two driverless cars meet each other on single-track lane, when one has a trailer and the other is at the head of a line of other cars, is going to make landing on Mars look simple. Then again negotiating a few stray sheep will be challenging too. > > > > > > Not. Going. To. Happen. > > > > > > One of Elon Musk's major negatives is his fanatical and deadly habit of over-promoting the capabilities of his 'driverless' cars, when sane caution is best. > > > > > > The edge and corner cases in driverless cars are numerous; and he shows f'all consideration of the fact that he is pushing the technology far and fast. > > > > > > This will kill people. In fact, it can be argued that it already has. > > > > Of course driverless cars will kill people. The relevant question is, will they save more people than they kill. Humans are, shall we say, imperfect drivers. The carnage on the roads is frightening and is often caused by impatience and inattention. That shouldn't be a problem for a computer. The issue for a computer will be inference and assessing novel situations. Computers are getting surprisingly good at both of these things. Driverless cars that are safer than human drivers are a few short years away. Whether they can cope without getting themselves stuck is a more interesting question imo. > > But how do you punish a driverless car?
Why would you want to punish anyone or anything for an accident? As far as I can see, punishment is about deterrence. It's a way of reprogramming people against certain actions (and not just the one who did the act). Machines can simply be reprogrammed (or, more accurately, fed new training data). Safe practices do not arrive shiny new and intact. They evolve through the messy accumulation of mistakes and lessons. That's as true for humans as it is for machine learning.
The aviation industry is a leader in this sphere. A no-blame culture of sharing information on problems has made it the safest transport medium we have. No mean feat, considering its age and the obvious fact that if a plane falls out of the sky, everyone on or under it is in a lot of trouble. Prosecutions still happen, but they are certainly not the driver (!) in improving safety.
> @ah009 said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @JosiasJessop said: > > > > Indeed, or in rural Dorset (/other county of your choice)... > > > > > > > > The algorithms required when two driverless cars meet each other on single-track lane, when one has a trailer and the other is at the head of a line of other cars, is going to make landing on Mars look simple. Then again negotiating a few stray sheep will be challenging too. > > > > > > > > Not. Going. To. Happen. > > > > > > > > One of Elon Musk's major negatives is his fanatical and deadly habit of over-promoting the capabilities of his 'driverless' cars, when sane caution is best. > > > > > > > > The edge and corner cases in driverless cars are numerous; and he shows f'all consideration of the fact that he is pushing the technology far and fast. > > > > > > > > This will kill people. In fact, it can be argued that it already has. > > > > > > Of course driverless cars will kill people. The relevant question is, will they save more people than they kill. Humans are, shall we say, imperfect drivers. The carnage on the roads is frightening and is often caused by impatience and inattention. That shouldn't be a problem for a computer. The issue for a computer will be inference and assessing novel situations. Computers are getting surprisingly good at both of these things. Driverless cars that are safer than human drivers are a few short years away. Whether they can cope without getting themselves stuck is a more interesting question imo. > > > > But how do you punish a driverless car? > > Why would you want to punish anyone or anything for an accident? > As far as I can see, punishment is about deterrence. It's a way of reprogramming people against certain actions (and not just the one who did the act). > Machines can simply be reprogrammed (or, more accurately, fed new training data). > Safe practices do not arrive shiny new and intact. They evolve through the messy accumulation of mistakes and lessons. That's as true for humans as it is for machine learning. > > The aviation industry is a leader in this sphere. A no-blame culture of sharing information on problems has made it the safest transport medium we have. No mean feat, considering its age and the obvious fact that if a plane falls out of the sky, everyone on or under it is in a lot of trouble. Prosecutions still happen, but they are certainly not the driver (!) in improving safety.
My point is that public opinion is more tolerant toward human-causes deaths than it would be towards people being randomly killed by some sort of mobile machine. Partly that is because we all know we could be in an accident ourselves and partly because where there is human negligence people can be held responsible for the consequences.
> @IanB2 said: > > @TheWhiteRabbit said: > > Question: > > > > One analysis I saw suggested that the 2 nominators for each Tory leadership candidate should be added to their declared support? is that right?> Do we know who the nominators are to confirm we are not double counting? > > Surely nominations haven’t opened yet?
I don't know if it's something you get your papers in early for.
I'm even more confused why we should adding 2 to each candidate if not.
> @TrèsDifficile said: > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > > Mr. B2, Yorkshire is not in the south. Cease this blasphemy! > > > > Most southerly part of the British Isles part of the UK is approx N49 51.000. Most northerly is approx N60 51.000. That means the midway point, delineating north and south is at N55 21.000. That a line cutting roughly through Girvan - Moffat - Amble. Yorkshire is *entirely* in the southern half. > > I'd say that 'the North' and 'the South' tend to refer to England. > > If you add the counties' areas in order from north to south, with their southern tip being the defining point, you reach half the area of England (c65,200 sq km) somewhere between Shropshire and Norfolk.
Yes, weighting by land area, such that you find the balancing point were you to cut the shape of the UK out of a piece of cardboard, or alternatively the population-weighed centre point, would be more logical.
One of my pet peeves with Google Maps is the number of right turns its routes take you on, or pointless "short-cuts" that theoretically save you a minute by having you make half a dozen additional turns.
The algorithm is essentially stupid and has no finesse. Why isn't there a complexity penalty to encourage the algorithm to return simpler routes? Why aren't right turns penalised to avoid you sitting waiting for someone to let you out?
Now I'm supposed to trust these people to create algorithms to drive the car as well as plot the route? I'd like to see them do the route better first.
Ah, I wonder if the number of right turns is because, as an American company, it is saving drivers from unnecessary left turns.
> @IanB2 said: > > @TrèsDifficile said: > > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > > > > Mr. B2, Yorkshire is not in the south. Cease this blasphemy! > > > > > > > > Most southerly part of the British Isles part of the UK is approx N49 51.000. Most northerly is approx N60 51.000. That means the midway point, delineating north and south is at N55 21.000. That a line cutting roughly through Girvan - Moffat - Amble. Yorkshire is *entirely* in the southern half. > > > > I'd say that 'the North' and 'the South' tend to refer to England. > > > > If you add the counties' areas in order from north to south, with their southern tip being the defining point, you reach half the area of England (c65,200 sq km) somewhere between Shropshire and Norfolk. > > > Yes, weighting by land area, such that you find the balancing point were you to cut the shape of the UK out of a piece of cardboard, or alternatively the population-weighed centre point, would be more logical.
On a land area weighting, the answer is near Liverpool
... > > > Of course driverless cars will kill people. The relevant question is, will they save more people than they kill. Humans are, shall we say, imperfect drivers. The carnage on the roads is frightening and is often caused by impatience and inattention. That shouldn't be a problem for a computer. The issue for a computer will be inference and assessing novel situations. Computers are getting surprisingly good at both of these things. Driverless cars that are safer than human drivers are a few short years away. Whether they can cope without getting themselves stuck is a more interesting question imo.
> >
> > But how do you punish a driverless car?
>
> Why would you want to punish anyone or anything for an accident?
> As far as I can see, punishment is about deterrence. It's a way of reprogramming people against certain actions (and not just the one who did the act).
> Machines can simply be reprogrammed (or, more accurately, fed new training data).
> Safe practices do not arrive shiny new and intact. They evolve through the messy accumulation of mistakes and lessons. That's as true for humans as it is for machine learning.
>
> The aviation industry is a leader in this sphere. A no-blame culture of sharing information on problems has made it the safest transport medium we have. No mean feat, considering its age and the obvious fact that if a plane falls out of the sky, everyone on or under it is in a lot of trouble. Prosecutions still happen, but they are certainly not the driver (!) in improving safety.
My point is that public opinion is more tolerant toward human-causes deaths than it would be towards people being randomly killed by some sort of mobile machine. Partly that is because we all know we could be in an accident ourselves and partly because where there is human negligence people can be held responsible for the consequences.
Sure. Take-up will happen first in jurisdictions where public opinion is a bit less of a problem than it might be here or in the US. Singapore, for instance.
> @Pulpstar said: > On the other part of future cars (Electric) how is the charging meant to work for somewhere like Portsmouth where there are virtually no driveways ?
& I think Gove is now the more likely opponent for Boris or Raab than Hunt
Gove vs Raab or Boris in the final would mean both are from the same Brexit camp. It is possible but the mechanics probably give Hunt a good chance of representing the soft Brexit team, or Javid.
> @IanB2 said: > My point is that public opinion is more tolerant toward human-causes deaths than it would be towards people being randomly killed by some sort of mobile machine. Partly that is because we all know we could be in an accident ourselves and partly because where there is human negligence people can be held responsible for the consequences.
Tangent: The sad thing is, people are very bad at understanding risk. And we focus on the negatives.
Take the average speed camera all along the A9. Since they were introduced, apparently the death rate on the road has dropped off. Something like a dozen people are alive now who wouldn't have been.
None of those 12 feel grateful, because they have no idea their lives were saved. The drove the A9 one day, arrived normally, and were unaware that they would have been killed in a crash had the speed cameras not been there. Instead, they are far more likely to feel aggrieved at the cameras. They arrive alive and annoyed. If circumstances were different, their relatives might have ended up angry and bitter at someone's careless driving that snuffed out the life of their loved one. If driverless cars prove to be safer (and they will be) than human drivers, lives will be saved and nobody will know any different.
Thus your question is very pertinent to how we humans normally think "who do we blame when it goes wrong?", whereas we should be thinking about "how do we stop things going wrong?"
> @ah009 said: > > @IanB2 said: > > My point is that public opinion is more tolerant toward human-causes deaths than it would be towards people being randomly killed by some sort of mobile machine. Partly that is because we all know we could be in an accident ourselves and partly because where there is human negligence people can be held responsible for the consequences. > > Tangent: > The sad thing is, people are very bad at understanding risk. And we focus on the negatives. > > Take the average speed camera all along the A9. Since they were introduced, apparently the death rate on the road has dropped off. Something like a dozen people are alive now who wouldn't have been. > > None of those 12 feel grateful, because they have no idea their lives were saved. The drove the A9 one day, arrived normally, and were unaware that they would have been killed in a crash had the speed cameras not been there. > Instead, they are far more likely to feel aggrieved at the cameras. They arrive alive and annoyed. > If circumstances were different, their relatives might have ended up angry and bitter at someone's careless driving that snuffed out the life of their loved one. If driverless cars prove to be safer (and they will be) than human drivers, lives will be saved and nobody will know any different. > > Thus your question is very pertinent to how we humans normally think "who do we blame when it goes wrong?", whereas we should be thinking about "how do we stop things going wrong?"
Of course. Nevertheless after the very first death caused by the error of a driverless car, there will be an outcry.
> @Sandpit said: > On the other part of future cars (Electric) how is the charging meant to work for somewhere like Portsmouth where there are virtually no driveways ? > > Also, where does all this electricity come from, to replace the power that’s currently being generated by 30m small internal combustion engines?
Hi Sunil, I actually have a serious question about railways. I was at Hednesford station this morning admiring our shiny new electric trains (which are very quiet and very fast, before you ask). I was punching some numbers into the ticket vending machine and to my astonishment it offered me an off-peak travelcard zones 1-6 to London for £10 as long as I used the LNR direct service.
Couple of questions:
1) I can't find this price anywhere online. Can you get cheaper tickets rocking up on the station or would it normally be online?
2) Would a travelcard always include a return to the station where it was purchased?
If I really can get them at that price, I'm already planning loads of trips to London...
> @TheWhiteRabbit said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @TrèsDifficile said: > > > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > > > > > > Mr. B2, Yorkshire is not in the south. Cease this blasphemy! > > > > > > > > > > > > Most southerly part of the British Isles part of the UK is approx N49 51.000. Most northerly is approx N60 51.000. That means the midway point, delineating north and south is at N55 21.000. That a line cutting roughly through Girvan - Moffat - Amble. Yorkshire is *entirely* in the southern half. > > > > > > I'd say that 'the North' and 'the South' tend to refer to England. > > > > > > If you add the counties' areas in order from north to south, with their southern tip being the defining point, you reach half the area of England (c65,200 sq km) somewhere between Shropshire and Norfolk. > > > > > > Yes, weighting by land area, such that you find the balancing point were you to cut the shape of the UK out of a piece of cardboard, or alternatively the population-weighed centre point, would be more logical. > > On a land area weighting, the answer is near Liverpool > > But that's for the UK as a whole
Scotland is granite and therefore heavier than the chalky downs in the south
> @TheWhiteRabbit said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @TheWhiteRabbit said: > > > Question: > > > > > > One analysis I saw suggested that the 2 nominators for each Tory leadership candidate should be added to their declared support? is that right?> Do we know who the nominators are to confirm we are not double counting? > > > > Surely nominations haven’t opened yet? > > I don't know if it's something you get your papers in early for. > > I'm even more confused why we should adding 2 to each candidate if not.
More likely any who don’t achieve at least two backers at the point May formally resigns and kicks off the contest will have to drop out. Unless there’s a Mrs Beckett around to widen the field.
> @Sandpit said: > Also, where does all this electricity come from, to replace the power that’s currently being generated by 30m small internal combustion engines?
We could put a cable into Dominic Raab and power the country on his own sense of self-satisfied smugness.
How times move on. Cleese's car looks to be barely one step removed from a sedan chair....
I was speaking to a classic car owner the other week who said that until about 10 years ago, other drivers would wave at their Alvis, but now people see it as just an old relic. Cars have moved on so much in the past couple of decades, and even small cars have all the clever electronics. In the 1970s you had to fit your own car radio and even the front floor mats were extras.
How times move on. Cleese's car looks to be barely one step removed from a sedan chair....
I was speaking to a classic car owner the other week who said that until about 10 years ago, other drivers would wave at their Alvis, but now people see it as just an old relic. Cars have moved on so much in the past couple of decades, and even small cars have all the clever electronics. In the 1970s you had to fit your own car radio and even the front floor mats were extras.
I seem to recall that in 1970s a working door handle was an extra.
> @Sandpit said: > On the other part of future cars (Electric) how is the charging meant to work for somewhere like Portsmouth where there are virtually no driveways ? > > Also, where does all this electricity come from, to replace the power that’s currently being generated by 30m small internal combustion engines?
Mainly lots of wind. Generating capacity will have to increase considerably, of course.
On the other hand, several million electric cars charging overnight is quite a good use of unused capacity.
To talk weather technicalities, which is fair game if we have to mention some Yorkshireman getting dismissed in a cricket match, what we may be seeing is a left over from the winter just gone.
The Stratospheric vortex endured much longer than has been the case in previous winters maintaining its cohesion well into April when normally it would have been broke by the Final Warming.
The later Final Warming produced an unusually strong zonal reversal which provided an E'ly flow into may and allowed for northern blocking (anticyclonic conditions over either Greenland or Scandinavia). That's not unusual in and of itself in May but was more pronounced this year.
Similar conditions in June don't always mean dry weather - with lower pressure over Europe there's plenty of opportunity for storms or heavier rain for southern and eastern parts while it will be a great time to take that holiday to Stornaway you've always promised yourself.
Hi Sunil, I actually have a serious question about railways. I was at Hednesford station this morning admiring our shiny new electric trains (which are very quiet and very fast, before you ask). I was punching some numbers into the ticket vending machine and to my astonishment it offered me an off-peak travelcard zones 1-6 to London for £10 as long as I used the LNR direct service.
Couple of questions:
1) I can't find this price anywhere online. Can you get cheaper tickets rocking up on the station or would it normally be online?
2) Would a travelcard always include a return to the station where it was purchased?
If I really can get them at that price, I'm already planning loads of trips to London...
Well, if the machine says you can do it for £10 then go for it! The Travelcard enables you to get off at Euston and go anywhere in Zones 1-6 after 9.30am and all-day weekends/holidays.
On the other part of future cars (Electric) how is the charging meant to work for somewhere like Portsmouth where there are virtually no driveways ?
Also, where does all this electricity come from, to replace the power that’s currently being generated by 30m small internal combustion engines?
Where does the electricity come to pump oil out of the ground, fill up a supertanker, oh, and build a supertanker in the first place, then empty the oil in this country and refine the oil into petrol or diesel. Then transport the final product to service stations.
Hi Sunil, I actually have a serious question about railways. I was at Hednesford station this morning admiring our shiny new electric trains (which are very quiet and very fast, before you ask). I was punching some numbers into the ticket vending machine and to my astonishment it offered me an off-peak travelcard zones 1-6 to London for £10 as long as I used the LNR direct service.
Couple of questions:
1) I can't find this price anywhere online. Can you get cheaper tickets rocking up on the station or would it normally be online?
2) Would a travelcard always include a return to the station where it was purchased?
If I really can get them at that price, I'm already planning loads of trips to London...
Well, if the machine says you can do it for £10 then go for it! The Travelcard enables you to get off at Euston and go anywhere in Zones 1-6 after 9.30am and all-day weekends/holidays.
I'm just baffled there's a price available on the machine that's not on the net. Is that usual? Cheapest I can get from any website (including theirs) is £37.
> @eek said: > > @Jonathan said: > > Rory keeps growing on me. Believe in the bin! > > > > twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/1133966733486755840?s=21 > > From a position of weakness you try and negotiate a new deal...
What is actually good about that interview is not only Rory The Tory answers, is the interviewer. He asks good fair questions and lets Rory respond. Rather than interrupt, interrupt, give own view, interrupt.
Raab certainly seems to be on the front foot with his digital campaign... Not sure how much difference it will make with his MPs and Con members though.
The former won't be swayed by slick marketing videos even if they do go viral and I doubt many of the later are even on social media.
Still, I suppose its a sign that if he became Con leader a Raab general election campaign would at least be professional (which will be a relief to Con MPs after the 2017 debacle...
I'm waiting for the TV debates to see who looks comfortable on screen. I suspect the MPs will do the same. My gut feeling is that they will have to choose a brexiteer outside the current cabinet vs Hunt, and then see where the members land. They'll then have to hope that the chosen leader can connect with the voters. All of us - MPs, members and voters - will have to test our fear of Brexit vs our fear of Corbyn
What a waste of TV time, showing a bunch of donkeys parading for a provincial English political party which is only of interest to the 120K Tory members as the population is excluded from the democratic process( as if there was any in the UK ).
> Ah, I wonder if the number of right turns is because, as an American company, it is saving drivers from unnecessary left turns.
That's certainly plausible, but Google Maps is nearly 14 years old now. It's the sort of thing you'd forgive in something new, but they ought to have improved upon by now.
> My point is that public opinion is more tolerant toward human-causes deaths than it would be towards people being randomly killed by some sort of mobile machine. Partly that is because we all know we could be in an accident ourselves and partly because where there is human negligence people can be held responsible for the consequences.
Tangent:
The sad thing is, people are very bad at understanding risk. And we focus on the negatives.
Take the average speed camera all along the A9. Since they were introduced, apparently the death rate on the road has dropped off. Something like a dozen people are alive now who wouldn't have been.
None of those 12 feel grateful, because they have no idea their lives were saved. The drove the A9 one day, arrived normally, and were unaware that they would have been killed in a crash had the speed cameras not been there.
Instead, they are far more likely to feel aggrieved at the cameras. They arrive alive and annoyed.
If circumstances were different, their relatives might have ended up angry and bitter at someone's careless driving that snuffed out the life of their loved one. If driverless cars prove to be safer (and they will be) than human drivers, lives will be saved and nobody will know any different.
Thus your question is very pertinent to how we humans normally think "who do we blame when it goes wrong?", whereas we should be thinking about "how do we stop things going wrong?"
All of which I agree with wholeheartedly, but humans generally don’t think like that.
It’s the reason a plane crash or train crash leads the news for far longer than the time during which the same number of people have been killed in road accidents. Every serious self-driving car accident is going to be headline news, even if overall they are ‘saving’ hundreds of lives a year.
As suggested elsewhere, they are better off being introduced in places where accident rates are already high and people have different attitudes towards both serious accidents and lawyers. Asia and Arabia most probably.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > Ah, I wonder if the number of right turns is because, as an American company, it is saving drivers from unnecessary left turns. > > That's certainly plausible, but Google Maps is nearly 14 years old now. It's the sort of thing you'd forgive in something new, but they ought to have improved upon by now.
Isn't Google Maps directions now powered by Waze? Google own Waze and although initially they ran separately, I was under the impression that google now used Waze route planning tech.
Hi Sunil, I actually have a serious question about railways. I was at Hednesford station this morning admiring our shiny new electric trains (which are very quiet and very fast, before you ask). I was punching some numbers into the ticket vending machine and to my astonishment it offered me an off-peak travelcard zones 1-6 to London for £10 as long as I used the LNR direct service.
Couple of questions:
1) I can't find this price anywhere online. Can you get cheaper tickets rocking up on the station or would it normally be online?
2) Would a travelcard always include a return to the station where it was purchased?
If I really can get them at that price, I'm already planning loads of trips to London...
Well, if the machine says you can do it for £10 then go for it! The Travelcard enables you to get off at Euston and go anywhere in Zones 1-6 after 9.30am and all-day weekends/holidays.
I'm just baffled there's a price available on the machine that's not on the net. Is that usual? Cheapest I can get from any website (including theirs) is £37.
I've done London to Coventry on Virgin Trains for £9, but one way only and that was booking in advance. Seems weird that the LNWR website doesn't offer the cheaper option. But I guess turning up at the station and getting a knowledgeable bloke or lady at the counter helps out. When I went to Brighton with my mum and brother at the weekend, the guy at the counter at London Blackfriars pointed out it was much cheaper to get two sets of Groupsave singles £8 each of us, each way, than buying Groupsave open returns (£24 each).
Edited extra bit: he thinks there's a strong case for some BBC journalists to face court over reporting the One Bus of the Apocalypse...
Every time I think Gove was the most ignorant fool ever to meddle with Education, Adonis helpfully does something to remind me that isn't quite correct.
I've just seen McVey's comments on LGBT+ education -and she can fuck right off with that sort of bigoted nonsense.
What has she said?
Esther McVey has waded into the row on LGBT-inclusive education in Birmingham schools, as she sets out her manifesto for the Conservative party leadership.
The Tory MP is one of 11 MPs vying to become party leader and consequently Britain’s next prime minister.
Speaking to Sky News on Thursday morning (May 30), she said that teaching young children about LGBT relationships is a matter for parents.
“I believe parents know best for their children,” she said. “While they’re still children—and we’re talking primary school [age]—then parents need to have the final say.
“If parents want to take their young children out of certain forms of sex and relationship education then that is down to them.”
England well short of a good total here. They need at least 350 and they're going to end up with 300 at best even if Morgan doesn't find an ingenious way to self-destruct.
My two cents on what Boris would do for the Tories' electoral prospects. I think the case for Boris as some super-charismatic vote-winning machine has been massively overstated, and is largely being driven by people with no intuition for human behaviour desperately applying some really flawed pattern recognition. He's, er, kinda like Trump and Farage, right? That must mean he'll be a populist icon like they, er, kinda are, right?
He did win two mayoral elections in London, and that's not nothing, but it's a role that most people don't take that seriously, and I think people underestimate the effect of the Evening Standard propagandising for him day in, day out, for months leading up to the votes.
In actually I think he's prone to stupid mistakes, stupid reactions (panic-quitting the cabinet after Davis, denying what he said about Zaghari-Ratcliffe despite it being on video), and embarrassing interviews like the one where Miliband handily beat him in the run up to 2015. His umming and erring is part of his style, but it's going to be a real liability when he's regularly faced with difficult interviews, because it makes him sound almost cartoonishly guilty and evasive.
The one asset I <i>do</i> think he has though is the ability to set the media agenda. Failing to do this was one of the biggest- if not the biggest- reasons that May's campaign did so badly in 2017. Day after day, Labour were setting the agenda, having the conversation on their terms. In the next election (assuming it's not totally dominated by Brexit in which case I have no idea what will happen), the Conservatives are going to be faced with the same fundamental problem as May: that they really don't have a vision or policy platform to sell the public, whereas Labour does. Labour will be presenting a manifesto stuffed full of policies which, according to polling, the public love, and I think the Tories' fortunes will rely largely on the ability to divert the spotlight from those policies. Boris may well be capable of that.
> @ydoethur said: > England well short of a good total here. They need at least 350 and they're going to end up with 300 at best even if Morgan doesn't find an ingenious way to self-destruct.
And I am not mega confident in our bowlers to be able to bowl many sides out.
> @ydoethur said: > England well short of a good total here. They need at least 350 and they're going to end up with 300 at best even if Morgan doesn't find an ingenious way to self-destruct.
Hi Sunil, I actually have a serious question about railways. I was at Hednesford station this morning admiring our shiny new electric trains (which are very quiet and very fast, before you ask). I was punching some numbers into the ticket vending machine and to my astonishment it offered me an off-peak travelcard zones 1-6 to London for £10 as long as I used the LNR direct service.
Couple of questions:
1) I can't find this price anywhere online. Can you get cheaper tickets rocking up on the station or would it normally be online?
2) Would a travelcard always include a return to the station where it was purchased?
If I really can get them at that price, I'm already planning loads of trips to London...
Well, if the machine says you can do it for £10 then go for it! The Travelcard enables you to get off at Euston and go anywhere in Zones 1-6 after 9.30am and all-day weekends/holidays.
I'm just baffled there's a price available on the machine that's not on the net. Is that usual? Cheapest I can get from any website (including theirs) is £37.
I've done London to Coventry on Virgin Trains for £9, but one way only and that was booking in advance. Seems weird that the LNWR website doesn't offer the cheaper option. But I guess turning up at the station and getting a knowledgeable bloke or lady at the counter helps out. When I went to Brighton with my mum and brother at the weekend, the guy at the counter at London Blackfriars pointed out it was much cheaper to get two sets of Groupsave singles £8 each of us, each way, than buying Groupsave open returns (£24 each).
OK, thanks. I think I will try a dry run tomorrow and see what happens.
> @TheWhiteRabbit said: > > @ydoethur said: > > England well short of a good total here. They need at least 350 and they're going to end up with 300 at best even if Morgan doesn't find an ingenious way to self-destruct. > > Nah, we're on for at least 330.
It will be criminal if Jos Butler ends up not batting the last 10.
Comments
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1134048767429292032
>
> We need someone who can get us to 2022.
>
> We don't want someone who will crash and burn on Bonfire Night having failed to get Parliamentary approval a no-deal on Halloween and thus precipitate a general election by Xmas.
>
-------
But what's the alternative? A deal with Labour won't work, and a further extension with continuing stalemate will just help shed more voters. The only option is a second referendum, but they're all ruling it out.
Raab's movie is a dog-whistle against Boris.
> Is Guido worried for his candidate
>
> https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1134048767429292032
Does Duncan Smith fear that the party is in danger of electing an eye-poppingly incompetent fuckwit? Is this something which has happened in the past?
What you need is someone with better Leave credentials but who you still think would, ultimately, not accept No Deal. Does anyone actually fit that criteria? Raab? Leadsome?
https://twitter.com/DanCarpenter85/status/1134049877229539330
> Is Guido worried for his candidate
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1134048767429292032
>
>
>
> All that makes me sad. Guido should be the bad boy of political commentary, not beholden to anyone. The magic is lost now I know he's Boris's valet.
Actually, eliminating a lot in one go might be to Boris's advantage.
And I think he's right. If they want to speed up, then just hold votes every day rather than only on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
>
> We had a referendum, and the people gave their answer. It’s not the fault of the people, that the politicians have failed to carry out their instructions.
That's not the point. The question is how the Conservative party can survive.
If you add the counties' areas in order from north to south, with their southern tip being the defining point, you reach half the area of England (c65,200 sq km) somewhere between Shropshire and Norfolk.
> Raab: The Movie
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1134030344649355264
>
>
>
> Which poster on here yesterday said that Raab had the same "something of the night" about him as Howard?
Yes, there was also some muttering from someone on here recently that neither Raab nor Miliband "looked the part," which given their total difference in almost every area, also sounds like code for something else.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1134045344617160704
Plus he might convert those otherwise unconvertable.
One analysis I saw suggested that the 2 nominators for each Tory leadership candidate should be added to their declared support? is that right?> Do we know who the nominators are to confirm we are not double counting?
> Mr. Me, interesting climatic comment.
>
> Mr. Urquhart, I think someone tipped Miliband as next Labour leader at about 101.
>
> Upon checking, that was Mr. Eagles in 2017. I put a pound or two on.
>
> I tipped him at 200/1.
>
> http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/29/is-this-ed-milibands-route-back-to-the-labour-leadership/
>
> Can we get a price Ed Miliband for the Conservative leadership? Those currently declared are so uninspiring and the Tories nicked most of Ed's policies anyway, especially the chaos.
I'll give you 100/1 Ed Miliband wins this Tory leadership race. Any amount, payable up front.
> > @williamglenn said:
>
> > Raab: The Movie
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1134030344649355264
>
>
>
>
>
> Raab certainly seems to be on the front foot with his digital campaign... Not sure how much difference it will make with his MPs and Con members though.
>
>
>
> The former won't be swayed by slick marketing videos even if they do go viral and I doubt many of the later are even on social media.
>
>
>
> Still, I suppose its a sign that if he became Con leader a Raab general election campaign would at least be professional (which will be a relief to Con MPs after the 2017 debacle...
>
> I'm waiting for the TV debates to see who looks comfortable on screen. I suspect the MPs will do the same. My gut feeling is that they will have to choose a brexiteer outside the current cabinet vs Hunt, and then see where the members land. They'll then have to hope that the chosen leader can connect with the voters. All of us - MPs, members and voters - will have to test our fear of Brexit vs our fear of Corbyn
I think Gove is now the more likely opponent for Boris or Raab than Hunt
> This is one of the main difficulties, I think. On one of my routes to work (which I avoid when possible for reasons set out below) there is a right turn on to a side road on a blind left bend. You cannot see far enough around the bend to make the turn safely
>
One of my pet peeves with Google Maps is the number of right turns its routes take you on, or pointless "short-cuts" that theoretically save you a minute by having you make half a dozen additional turns.
The algorithm is essentially stupid and has no finesse. Why isn't there a complexity penalty to encourage the algorithm to return simpler routes? Why aren't right turns penalised to avoid you sitting waiting for someone to let you out?
Now I'm supposed to trust these people to create algorithms to drive the car as well as plot the route? I'd like to see them do the route better first.
> Question:
>
> One analysis I saw suggested that the 2 nominators for each Tory leadership candidate should be added to their declared support? is that right?> Do we know who the nominators are to confirm we are not double counting?
Surely nominations haven’t opened yet?
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @JosiasJessop said:
> > > Indeed, or in rural Dorset (/other county of your choice)...
> > >
> > > The algorithms required when two driverless cars meet each other on single-track lane, when one has a trailer and the other is at the head of a line of other cars, is going to make landing on Mars look simple. Then again negotiating a few stray sheep will be challenging too.
> > >
> > > Not. Going. To. Happen.
> > >
> > > One of Elon Musk's major negatives is his fanatical and deadly habit of over-promoting the capabilities of his 'driverless' cars, when sane caution is best.
> > >
> > > The edge and corner cases in driverless cars are numerous; and he shows f'all consideration of the fact that he is pushing the technology far and fast.
> > >
> > > This will kill people. In fact, it can be argued that it already has.
> >
> > Of course driverless cars will kill people. The relevant question is, will they save more people than they kill. Humans are, shall we say, imperfect drivers. The carnage on the roads is frightening and is often caused by impatience and inattention. That shouldn't be a problem for a computer. The issue for a computer will be inference and assessing novel situations. Computers are getting surprisingly good at both of these things. Driverless cars that are safer than human drivers are a few short years away. Whether they can cope without getting themselves stuck is a more interesting question imo.
>
> But how do you punish a driverless car?
And why would you punish a human driver for a mistake?
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @JosiasJessop said:
> > > Indeed, or in rural Dorset (/other county of your choice)...
> > >
> > > The algorithms required when two driverless cars meet each other on single-track lane, when one has a trailer and the other is at the head of a line of other cars, is going to make landing on Mars look simple. Then again negotiating a few stray sheep will be challenging too.
> > >
> > > Not. Going. To. Happen.
> > >
> > > One of Elon Musk's major negatives is his fanatical and deadly habit of over-promoting the capabilities of his 'driverless' cars, when sane caution is best.
> > >
> > > The edge and corner cases in driverless cars are numerous; and he shows f'all consideration of the fact that he is pushing the technology far and fast.
> > >
> > > This will kill people. In fact, it can be argued that it already has.
> >
> > Of course driverless cars will kill people. The relevant question is, will they save more people than they kill. Humans are, shall we say, imperfect drivers. The carnage on the roads is frightening and is often caused by impatience and inattention. That shouldn't be a problem for a computer. The issue for a computer will be inference and assessing novel situations. Computers are getting surprisingly good at both of these things. Driverless cars that are safer than human drivers are a few short years away. Whether they can cope without getting themselves stuck is a more interesting question imo.
>
> But how do you punish a driverless car?
Why would you want to punish anyone or anything for an accident?
As far as I can see, punishment is about deterrence. It's a way of reprogramming people against certain actions (and not just the one who did the act).
Machines can simply be reprogrammed (or, more accurately, fed new training data).
Safe practices do not arrive shiny new and intact. They evolve through the messy accumulation of mistakes and lessons. That's as true for humans as it is for machine learning.
The aviation industry is a leader in this sphere. A no-blame culture of sharing information on problems has made it the safest transport medium we have. No mean feat, considering its age and the obvious fact that if a plane falls out of the sky, everyone on or under it is in a lot of trouble. Prosecutions still happen, but they are certainly not the driver (!) in improving safety.
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @JosiasJessop said:
> > > > Indeed, or in rural Dorset (/other county of your choice)...
> > > >
> > > > The algorithms required when two driverless cars meet each other on single-track lane, when one has a trailer and the other is at the head of a line of other cars, is going to make landing on Mars look simple. Then again negotiating a few stray sheep will be challenging too.
> > > >
> > > > Not. Going. To. Happen.
> > > >
> > > > One of Elon Musk's major negatives is his fanatical and deadly habit of over-promoting the capabilities of his 'driverless' cars, when sane caution is best.
> > > >
> > > > The edge and corner cases in driverless cars are numerous; and he shows f'all consideration of the fact that he is pushing the technology far and fast.
> > > >
> > > > This will kill people. In fact, it can be argued that it already has.
> > >
> > > Of course driverless cars will kill people. The relevant question is, will they save more people than they kill. Humans are, shall we say, imperfect drivers. The carnage on the roads is frightening and is often caused by impatience and inattention. That shouldn't be a problem for a computer. The issue for a computer will be inference and assessing novel situations. Computers are getting surprisingly good at both of these things. Driverless cars that are safer than human drivers are a few short years away. Whether they can cope without getting themselves stuck is a more interesting question imo.
> >
> > But how do you punish a driverless car?
>
> Why would you want to punish anyone or anything for an accident?
> As far as I can see, punishment is about deterrence. It's a way of reprogramming people against certain actions (and not just the one who did the act).
> Machines can simply be reprogrammed (or, more accurately, fed new training data).
> Safe practices do not arrive shiny new and intact. They evolve through the messy accumulation of mistakes and lessons. That's as true for humans as it is for machine learning.
>
> The aviation industry is a leader in this sphere. A no-blame culture of sharing information on problems has made it the safest transport medium we have. No mean feat, considering its age and the obvious fact that if a plane falls out of the sky, everyone on or under it is in a lot of trouble. Prosecutions still happen, but they are certainly not the driver (!) in improving safety.
My point is that public opinion is more tolerant toward human-causes deaths than it would be towards people being randomly killed by some sort of mobile machine. Partly that is because we all know we could be in an accident ourselves and partly because where there is human negligence people can be held responsible for the consequences.
> > @TheWhiteRabbit said:
> > Question:
> >
> > One analysis I saw suggested that the 2 nominators for each Tory leadership candidate should be added to their declared support? is that right?> Do we know who the nominators are to confirm we are not double counting?
>
> Surely nominations haven’t opened yet?
I don't know if it's something you get your papers in early for.
I'm even more confused why we should adding 2 to each candidate if not.
https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1134053781430263808
> But how do you punish a driverless car?
John Cleese in real life appears to have gone madder than this...
> > @Morris_Dancer said:
>
> > Mr. B2, Yorkshire is not in the south. Cease this blasphemy!
>
>
>
> Most southerly part of the British Isles part of the UK is approx N49 51.000. Most northerly is approx N60 51.000. That means the midway point, delineating north and south is at N55 21.000. That a line cutting roughly through Girvan - Moffat - Amble. Yorkshire is *entirely* in the southern half.
>
> I'd say that 'the North' and 'the South' tend to refer to England.
>
> If you add the counties' areas in order from north to south, with their southern tip being the defining point, you reach half the area of England (c65,200 sq km) somewhere between Shropshire and Norfolk.
Yes, weighting by land area, such that you find the balancing point were you to cut the shape of the UK out of a piece of cardboard, or alternatively the population-weighed centre point, would be more logical.
>
> Interestingly, that thread has been picked up by Simon Nixon, chief leader writer for The Times:
>
Simon Nixon has always been deeply scornful of the Brexiteers, even before the referendum.
> > @TrèsDifficile said:
> > > @Morris_Dancer said:
> >
> > > Mr. B2, Yorkshire is not in the south. Cease this blasphemy!
> >
> >
> >
> > Most southerly part of the British Isles part of the UK is approx N49 51.000. Most northerly is approx N60 51.000. That means the midway point, delineating north and south is at N55 21.000. That a line cutting roughly through Girvan - Moffat - Amble. Yorkshire is *entirely* in the southern half.
> >
> > I'd say that 'the North' and 'the South' tend to refer to England.
> >
> > If you add the counties' areas in order from north to south, with their southern tip being the defining point, you reach half the area of England (c65,200 sq km) somewhere between Shropshire and Norfolk.
>
>
> Yes, weighting by land area, such that you find the balancing point were you to cut the shape of the UK out of a piece of cardboard, or alternatively the population-weighed centre point, would be more logical.
On a land area weighting, the answer is near Liverpool
But that's for the UK as a whole
Take-up will happen first in jurisdictions where public opinion is a bit less of a problem than it might be here or in the US. Singapore, for instance.
> On the other part of future cars (Electric) how is the charging meant to work for somewhere like Portsmouth where there are virtually no driveways ?
https://www.driving.co.uk/news/lamp-post-powered-electric-car-charging-points-arrive-london/
> My point is that public opinion is more tolerant toward human-causes deaths than it would be towards people being randomly killed by some sort of mobile machine. Partly that is because we all know we could be in an accident ourselves and partly because where there is human negligence people can be held responsible for the consequences.
Tangent:
The sad thing is, people are very bad at understanding risk. And we focus on the negatives.
Take the average speed camera all along the A9. Since they were introduced, apparently the death rate on the road has dropped off. Something like a dozen people are alive now who wouldn't have been.
None of those 12 feel grateful, because they have no idea their lives were saved. The drove the A9 one day, arrived normally, and were unaware that they would have been killed in a crash had the speed cameras not been there.
Instead, they are far more likely to feel aggrieved at the cameras. They arrive alive and annoyed.
If circumstances were different, their relatives might have ended up angry and bitter at someone's careless driving that snuffed out the life of their loved one. If driverless cars prove to be safer (and they will be) than human drivers, lives will be saved and nobody will know any different.
Thus your question is very pertinent to how we humans normally think "who do we blame when it goes wrong?", whereas we should be thinking about "how do we stop things going wrong?"
> But how do you punish a driverless car?
How times move on. Cleese's car looks to be barely one step removed from a sedan chair....
> > @IanB2 said:
> > My point is that public opinion is more tolerant toward human-causes deaths than it would be towards people being randomly killed by some sort of mobile machine. Partly that is because we all know we could be in an accident ourselves and partly because where there is human negligence people can be held responsible for the consequences.
>
> Tangent:
> The sad thing is, people are very bad at understanding risk. And we focus on the negatives.
>
> Take the average speed camera all along the A9. Since they were introduced, apparently the death rate on the road has dropped off. Something like a dozen people are alive now who wouldn't have been.
>
> None of those 12 feel grateful, because they have no idea their lives were saved. The drove the A9 one day, arrived normally, and were unaware that they would have been killed in a crash had the speed cameras not been there.
> Instead, they are far more likely to feel aggrieved at the cameras. They arrive alive and annoyed.
> If circumstances were different, their relatives might have ended up angry and bitter at someone's careless driving that snuffed out the life of their loved one. If driverless cars prove to be safer (and they will be) than human drivers, lives will be saved and nobody will know any different.
>
> Thus your question is very pertinent to how we humans normally think "who do we blame when it goes wrong?", whereas we should be thinking about "how do we stop things going wrong?"
Of course. Nevertheless after the very first death caused by the error of a driverless car, there will be an outcry.
> On the other part of future cars (Electric) how is the charging meant to work for somewhere like Portsmouth where there are virtually no driveways ?
>
> Also, where does all this electricity come from, to replace the power that’s currently being generated by 30m small internal combustion engines?
Nuclear.
Oh wait...
Couple of questions:
1) I can't find this price anywhere online. Can you get cheaper tickets rocking up on the station or would it normally be online?
2) Would a travelcard always include a return to the station where it was purchased?
If I really can get them at that price, I'm already planning loads of trips to London...
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @TrèsDifficile said:
> > > > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > >
> > > > Mr. B2, Yorkshire is not in the south. Cease this blasphemy!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Most southerly part of the British Isles part of the UK is approx N49 51.000. Most northerly is approx N60 51.000. That means the midway point, delineating north and south is at N55 21.000. That a line cutting roughly through Girvan - Moffat - Amble. Yorkshire is *entirely* in the southern half.
> > >
> > > I'd say that 'the North' and 'the South' tend to refer to England.
> > >
> > > If you add the counties' areas in order from north to south, with their southern tip being the defining point, you reach half the area of England (c65,200 sq km) somewhere between Shropshire and Norfolk.
> >
> >
> > Yes, weighting by land area, such that you find the balancing point were you to cut the shape of the UK out of a piece of cardboard, or alternatively the population-weighed centre point, would be more logical.
>
> On a land area weighting, the answer is near Liverpool
>
> But that's for the UK as a whole
Scotland is granite and therefore heavier than the chalky downs in the south
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @TheWhiteRabbit said:
> > > Question:
> > >
> > > One analysis I saw suggested that the 2 nominators for each Tory leadership candidate should be added to their declared support? is that right?> Do we know who the nominators are to confirm we are not double counting?
> >
> > Surely nominations haven’t opened yet?
>
> I don't know if it's something you get your papers in early for.
>
> I'm even more confused why we should adding 2 to each candidate if not.
More likely any who don’t achieve at least two backers at the point May formally resigns and kicks off the contest will have to drop out. Unless there’s a Mrs Beckett around to widen the field.
https://twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/1133966733486755840?s=21
> Also, where does all this electricity come from, to replace the power that’s currently being generated by 30m small internal combustion engines?
We could put a cable into Dominic Raab and power the country on his own sense of self-satisfied smugness.
> On the other part of future cars (Electric) how is the charging meant to work for somewhere like Portsmouth where there are virtually no driveways ?
>
> Also, where does all this electricity come from, to replace the power that’s currently being generated by 30m small internal combustion engines?
Mainly lots of wind. Generating capacity will have to increase considerably, of course.
On the other hand, several million electric cars charging overnight is quite a good use of unused capacity.
The Stratospheric vortex endured much longer than has been the case in previous winters maintaining its cohesion well into April when normally it would have been broke by the Final Warming.
The later Final Warming produced an unusually strong zonal reversal which provided an E'ly flow into may and allowed for northern blocking (anticyclonic conditions over either Greenland or Scandinavia). That's not unusual in and of itself in May but was more pronounced this year.
Similar conditions in June don't always mean dry weather - with lower pressure over Europe there's plenty of opportunity for storms or heavier rain for southern and eastern parts while it will be a great time to take that holiday to Stornaway you've always promised yourself.
> Rory keeps growing on me. Believe in the bin!
>
> https://twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/1133966733486755840?s=21
Ladies and gentlemen, the Conservative and Unionist Party has a real-life adult in their ranks.
> Rory keeps growing on me. Believe in the bin!
>
> https://twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/1133966733486755840?s=21
From a position of weakness you try and negotiate a new deal...
A much better communicator than Boris in my view.
> > @Jonathan said:
> > Rory keeps growing on me. Believe in the bin!
> >
> > twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/1133966733486755840?s=21
>
> From a position of weakness you try and negotiate a new deal...
What is actually good about that interview is not only Rory The Tory answers, is the interviewer. He asks good fair questions and lets Rory respond. Rather than interrupt, interrupt, give own view, interrupt.
Could be a good earner if you think the rules will be changed, as I think that it pushing it even on the current system.
> Mr. Jonathan, aye, changing rules mid-contest is wretched unless there's a very good reason indeed.
It's only mid-contest from our perspective
> Ah, I wonder if the number of right turns is because, as an American company, it is saving drivers from unnecessary left turns.
That's certainly plausible, but Google Maps is nearly 14 years old now. It's the sort of thing you'd forgive in something new, but they ought to have improved upon by now.
Edited extra bit: he thinks there's a strong case for some BBC journalists to face court over reporting the One Bus of the Apocalypse...
It’s the reason a plane crash or train crash leads the news for far longer than the time during which the same number of people have been killed in road accidents. Every serious self-driving car accident is going to be headline news, even if overall they are ‘saving’ hundreds of lives a year.
As suggested elsewhere, they are better off being introduced in places where accident rates are already high and people have different attitudes towards both serious accidents and lawyers. Asia and Arabia most probably.
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
>
> > Ah, I wonder if the number of right turns is because, as an American company, it is saving drivers from unnecessary left turns.
>
> That's certainly plausible, but Google Maps is nearly 14 years old now. It's the sort of thing you'd forgive in something new, but they ought to have improved upon by now.
Isn't Google Maps directions now powered by Waze? Google own Waze and although initially they ran separately, I was under the impression that google now used Waze route planning tech.
> Rory keeps growing on me. Believe in the bin!
>
> https://twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/1133966733486755840?s=21
Running down the Country I [sniff] Love [sob].
The Tory MP is one of 11 MPs vying to become party leader and consequently Britain’s next prime minister.
Speaking to Sky News on Thursday morning (May 30), she said that teaching young children about LGBT relationships is a matter for parents.
“I believe parents know best for their children,” she said. “While they’re still children—and we’re talking primary school [age]—then parents need to have the final say.
“If parents want to take their young children out of certain forms of sex and relationship education then that is down to them.”
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/05/30/esther-mcvey-lgbt-lessons-birmingham-tory-leadership/
He did win two mayoral elections in London, and that's not nothing, but it's a role that most people don't take that seriously, and I think people underestimate the effect of the Evening Standard propagandising for him day in, day out, for months leading up to the votes.
In actually I think he's prone to stupid mistakes, stupid reactions (panic-quitting the cabinet after Davis, denying what he said about Zaghari-Ratcliffe despite it being on video), and embarrassing interviews like the one where Miliband handily beat him in the run up to 2015. His umming and erring is part of his style, but it's going to be a real liability when he's regularly faced with difficult interviews, because it makes him sound almost cartoonishly guilty and evasive.
The one asset I <i>do</i> think he has though is the ability to set the media agenda. Failing to do this was one of the biggest- if not the biggest- reasons that May's campaign did so badly in 2017. Day after day, Labour were setting the agenda, having the conversation on their terms. In the next election (assuming it's not totally dominated by Brexit in which case I have no idea what will happen), the Conservatives are going to be faced with the same fundamental problem as May: that they really don't have a vision or policy platform to sell the public, whereas Labour does. Labour will be presenting a manifesto stuffed full of policies which, according to polling, the public love, and I think the Tories' fortunes will rely largely on the ability to divert the spotlight from those policies. Boris may well be capable of that.
> England well short of a good total here. They need at least 350 and they're going to end up with 300 at best even if Morgan doesn't find an ingenious way to self-destruct.
And I am not mega confident in our bowlers to be able to bowl many sides out.
> England well short of a good total here. They need at least 350 and they're going to end up with 300 at best even if Morgan doesn't find an ingenious way to self-destruct.
Nah, we're on for at least 330.
> > @ydoethur said:
> > England well short of a good total here. They need at least 350 and they're going to end up with 300 at best even if Morgan doesn't find an ingenious way to self-destruct.
>
> Nah, we're on for at least 330.
It will be criminal if Jos Butler ends up not batting the last 10.